Dr Jones Yeovil Ltd v The Stepping Stone Group Ltd

Dr Jones Yeovil Ltd v The Stepping Stone Group Ltd

Retention sums are contractually due to DRJ as the Making Good Certificates ought to have been issued; defendant's counterclaims fail due to lack of binding agreement, insufficient evidence, improper notification of defects, and failure to establish transferred loss or actual liability. The December 2014 meeting was not a binding contract. Defendant's claims for excessive electricity, carpets, insulation, Japanese Knotweed, snagging items, and warranties are rejected for lack of proof, quantum, or legal basis.

Parties
Claimant: DR Jones Yeovil Limited; Defendant: The Stepping Stone Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Retention Under Construction Contracts, Counterclaims for Defective Works, Principle of Transferred Loss, Damages for Breach of Contract, VAT Claims, Japanese Knotweed Liability
Contract Law Construction Law Retention Under Construction Contracts Counterclaims for Defective Works Principle of Transferred Loss Damages for Breach of Contract VAT Claims Japanese Knotweed Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DR Jones Yeovil Limited

Claimant

The Stepping Stone Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to payment of retention sums under Phase 1 and Phase 2 contracts
  2. 2 Whether the December 2014 meeting constituted a binding agreement affecting payment provisions
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to set-off or counterclaim for alleged losses due to defective works

Ratio Decidendi

Retention sums are contractually due to DRJ as the Making Good Certificates ought to have been issued; defendant's counterclaims fail due to lack of binding agreement, insufficient evidence, improper notification of defects, and failure to establish transferred loss or actual liability. The December 2014 meeting was not a binding contract. Defendant's claims for excessive electricity, carpets, insulation, Japanese Knotweed, snagging items, and warranties are rejected for lack of proof, quantum, or legal basis.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant £39,481.16 retention plus contractual interest (£10,668.86)
  • Defendant to pay claimant £1,181.63 VAT plus contractual interest (£488.64)